That made you seem really naive and callow to me. It's as if you have no idea what human suffering and compassion is (in either case).

A great deal of human suffering is self-inflicted. Exactly how much of my wealth (which represents nothing less sacred than hours of my life) should be allocated to ease the suffering of those who have given themselves cancer by smoking cigarrettes, or diabetes from poor eating habits, or injuries due to thrill-seeking?

The answer, of course, is "as much as the state wants". If I don't comply, my freedom will eventually be taken, at gunpoint if necessary, at which point your wealth will pay for my imprisonment.

The error in your thinking is the presumed connection between the state and human compassion.

"Analysis of the skeletons found at the rock shelter indicates that the humans of this time period led a physically tough life. In addition Cro-Magnon 1ís fungal infection, several of the individuals found at the shelter had fused vertebrae in their necks indicating traumatic injury, and the adult female found at the shelter had survived for some time with a skull fracture. The survival of the individuals with such ailments is indicative of group support and care, which allowed their injuries to heal."

A great deal of human suffering is self-inflicted. Exactly how much of my wealth (which represents nothing less sacred than hours of my life) should be allocated to ease the suffering of those who have given themselves cancer by smoking cigarrettes, or diabetes from poor eating habits, or injuries due to thrill-seeking?

The answer, of course, is "as much as the state wants". If I don't comply, my freedom will eventually be taken, at gunpoint if necessary, at which point your wealth will pay for my imprisonment.

I think that the flaw in yoru logic is that you are perceiving of it as 'your' money. People are paid salaries in an amount that already factors in that part of it will be apportioned as tax.

I think that humans are fairly arrogant in terms of perceiving themselves as somehow existing outside of the rest of the universe almost. When we 'own' land, we don't really own it. We're merely holding it in trust for the next generation.

Originally Posted by Nicator

The error in your thinking is the presumed connection between the state and human compassion.

Actually, I do think of the public health system as being an expression of the state's compassion. And evidence that the US is a less compassionate society than the rest of the first world.

Originally Posted by Grok

The public universities are almost as expensive as the private ones. The universities can get away with charging whatever price they want for tuition because the student loans are guaranteed by the government.

The high cost of education today is a direct result of government involvement, namely government guaranteed student loans.

This is completely false. The high cost of education is a direct result of governments *moving away* from socialist policies (where education was entirely paid for by the government, barring a token amount) so that now students pay a share of their education costs.

Originally Posted by Grok

Why do you need a gun to build a road?

Can you even answer that one simple question?

What is your fascination with guns? I mean, I understand you're an american and it's like an article of faith to believe in gun ownership (just like 'freedom'...) but seriously? The government doesn't need guns to build a road (I guess unless there's raiders in the hills or something...).

Governments fulfil several disparate functions. You might as well ask why the state needs to employ a teacher in order to provide healthcare services to the public. It's a ridiculous question.

What do you think people did in this country before we had medicare and medicaid? Do you actually think sick people were just dying in the streets without being taken care of?

yes, actually.

you see the process prior to insurance was either you could afford it on your own, or you couldn't and you had to go with either charity or nothing. charity often only covers so much -- so many people -- so effectively, a lot of people were dying without medical care.

it happens in the modern world as well. the issue of 'access to care' is not just about distribution of the care resources (doctors, medications, technology distribution) but also the cost of that care and whether or not it is afforded.

Education is a similar example. In areas where government doesn't fund schooling (several schools in africa), they are run via parent-paid tuition or charity (or a combination there of). This means that many children do not become educated, in particular if their parents aren't educated (and therefore cannot homeschool) or their children don't have access to charity to provide the education.

That being said, I'm not saying that the state is the answer per se.

But, yes, people do simply get sick without treatment and die and what not if they can't afford medical care and don't have access to charitable care.

I think that the flaw in yoru logic is that you are perceiving of it as 'your' money. People are paid salaries in an amount that already factors in that part of it will be apportioned as tax.

This is just like...so mind bogglingly statist that I just...I just don't know what to say.

Let me see if I can actually try and comprehend what you are trying to tell me.

You are saying that if the government steals my money before it reaches my bank account, it was never my money to begin with?

What really boggles the mind, if this is what you are actually saying, is that you actually expect me to accept that as truth.

I don't even want to bother replying to your other nonsense right now, I'm not in the mood for politics as I'm going to get a large dose of it tomorrow at the Nevada GOP State Convention.

This kind of stuff is just so far out there that it encourages me that people are reading it and discovering just how flawed statist arguments actually are. I'm shining the light of truth on everyone by illustrating the ridiculousness of your responses.

This kind of logic is the very definition of a wingnut. Someone who is so deluded that they actually try and convince themselves that there is no theft taking place.

Quite a fascinating psychological study actually.

wingnut: noun. someone who thinks theft of wages is not actually theft because the theft took place somewhere between the point where the payer paid the payee and the payee received the money.